4 ms·

>"There's got to be a better way to prove you are real and legit, than giving some company the right to pull a sub-one dollar sum of money from your bank accoun

>"There's got to be a better way to prove you are real and legit, than giving some company the right to pull a sub-one dollar sum of money from your bank account and then confirming that to them online" I've never had any problem with this method, what are your objective quantifications for why a 'internet id' from the Commerce Department would solve this better? Why does taxpayer money need to be spent on a problem that is already solved to a sufficient degree by commercial forces?

feawgo 16y ago
No intelligent person can look at the current system and think it's solved sufficiently. Right now enormous sums of time money and energy are spent fighting fraud, and lots of businesses simply aren't viable because of these flaws. We're all wasting lots of money because of these identity problems.
rsingel 16y ago
There's literally nothing in the proposal about an internet ID from the Commerce Department. While I'm not thoroughly convinced we need better identification on the net, the proposal here is about creating standards for stronger identification -- something like OpenID with the weight of the federal government trying to get industry, privacy and security groups in the same room. The alternative, it seems to me, is to watch Facebook corner the market on consumer identity, while defense contractors or the banking industry wins government contracts, and the latter eventually create some very badly designed system for citizens to log in to government agency websites. While I'm also deeply opposed to any government-run program, that's not what's happening here. I'm also a bit disappointed here with Hacker News. Folks here could easily imagine an internet that is easier and safer with a better way for users to manage their identities, while retaining both privacy and the possibility of pseudonimity and anonymity. Instead, mostly what's shown up in the border here is a Reddit thread with people saying, "You can take my anonymous internet but you'll have to pry the keyboard out of my cold dead hands." HN is usually much better than this.
- nowarninglabel 16y ago
  "I'm also a bit disappointed here with Hacker News. Folks here could easily imagine an internet that is easier and safer with a better way for users to manage their identities" I'm disappointed with you. Why do your values for a "safer and better" internet have to be imposed on me? Where is your objective data showing this will be a "safer and better" internet? Is internet use in Australia "safer and better" because they choose to govern and censor it? To me this sounds like the marketing-speak of the war on drugs and terror. Furthermore, why do I need a federal program to do this? There are already identity management solutions and standards widely available, namely Shibboleth http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/ http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/, which is deployed across California State Universities and universities across the U.S. There is no reason it could not be leveraged for federated identity. >"While I'm also deeply opposed to any government-run program, that's not what's happening here." Pardon? Just because it is a private-public partnership does not exclude the government from ownership, but don't trust me, go read the source yourself: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ns_tic.pdf http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ns_tic.pdf That is the draft from when it was proposed for DHS. You can see in the document itself the references to "accountability" of these private partners to the government in their "Identity Ecosystem".

feawgo 16y ago

No intelligent person can look at the current system and think it's solved sufficiently. Right now enormous sums of time money and energy are spent fighting fraud, and lots of businesses simply aren't viable because of these flaws. We're all wasting lots of money because of these identity problems.

rsingel 16y ago

There's literally nothing in the proposal about an internet ID from the Commerce Department. While I'm not thoroughly convinced we need better identification on the net, the proposal here is about creating standards for stronger identification -- something like OpenID with the weight of the federal government trying to get industry, privacy and security groups in the same room. The alternative, it seems to me, is to watch Facebook corner the market on consumer identity, while defense contractors or the banking industry wins government contracts, and the latter eventually create some very badly designed system for citizens to log in to government agency websites. While I'm also deeply opposed to any government-run program, that's not what's happening here. I'm also a bit disappointed here with Hacker News. Folks here could easily imagine an internet that is easier and safer with a better way for users to manage their identities, while retaining both privacy and the possibility of pseudonimity and anonymity. Instead, mostly what's shown up in the border here is a Reddit thread with people saying, "You can take my anonymous internet but you'll have to pry the keyboard out of my cold dead hands." HN is usually much better than this.

nowarninglabel 16y ago
"I'm also a bit disappointed here with Hacker News. Folks here could easily imagine an internet that is easier and safer with a better way for users to manage their identities" I'm disappointed with you. Why do your values for a "safer and better" internet have to be imposed on me? Where is your objective data showing this will be a "safer and better" internet? Is internet use in Australia "safer and better" because they choose to govern and censor it? To me this sounds like the marketing-speak of the war on drugs and terror. Furthermore, why do I need a federal program to do this? There are already identity management solutions and standards widely available, namely Shibboleth http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/ http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/, which is deployed across California State Universities and universities across the U.S. There is no reason it could not be leveraged for federated identity. >"While I'm also deeply opposed to any government-run program, that's not what's happening here." Pardon? Just because it is a private-public partnership does not exclude the government from ownership, but don't trust me, go read the source yourself: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ns_tic.pdf http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ns_tic.pdf That is the draft from when it was proposed for DHS. You can see in the document itself the references to "accountability" of these private partners to the government in their "Identity Ecosystem".